NATO Reform Idea

[Farnan]

So I've had this idea of reforming NATO. This is how I imagine the reform:

Structure:

Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe - Commanded by an American of the rank of OF-9 (equivalent to US Admiral or General), deputy commanded by a European of the rank of OF-9. This is the military leadership of NATO overall. In times of non-Article 5 wars this is an organization command, but in an Article 5 war it will be an operational command.

European Force (EUFOR) - Commanded by an OF-9, with an OF-8 deputy, an OF-8 Ground Forces Commander, an OF-8 Air Force Commander and an OF-8 Naval Forces Commander. This is made up of the NATO contribution of the European Union states that are also members of NATO. The ground forces are 45 brigades (combat and support) divided into four Corps (Western (France, UK, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Benelux, Norway), Southern(Portugal, Spain, Italy), Eastern (Baltic States, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech) and South Eastern (Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Greece). These brigades can be formed by one nation (such as a French Brigade) or multiple nations (such as a Baltic Brigade). The troops in each brigade remain part of their national militaries unless called up for NATO duty, except they must participate in at least two exercises as a brigade per year. The total ground forces would be around 225,000 which is a little less than a sixth the size of the total number of active ground forces in the EU members of NATO. The air forces are made of four "air forces" that correspond with the ground forces corps and are made up of groups. The naval forces are divided into two fleets: Northern Fleet (UK, France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Poland, Baltic States, Belgium, Netherlands) and Mediterranean Fleet (UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Romania, Bulgaria). Non-NATO EU members can integrate themselves into the EUFOR formation as "associate" units and are not bound to the NATO treaty. In the case of an Article 5 war this is an operational formation, but otherwise is an organizational formation. As more NATO nations join the EU they will be transferred to this force.

Central Force (CENTFOR) - Commanded by an OF-8, with an OF-7 deputy, an OF-7 Ground Forces Commander, an OF-7 Air Force Commander and an OF-7 Naval Forces Commander. This is made up of the NATO contribution of Turkey, Albania and Croatia (till it formally enters the EU). Once Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro enter NATO there NATO contribution will be part of this force along with any other non-EU nation not in the Americas. Its ground force has one Corps (CENTFOR Corps), one named Air Force (CENTFOR Air Force) and one fleet (Black Sea Fleet). Its ground force is made up of 10 Battle/Support Groups, around 20,000 soldiers who like the EUFOR brigades remain part of their national militaries when not called up for NATO duty. In the case of an Article 5 war this is an operational formation, but otherwise is an organizational formation.

Americas Force (AMFOR) - Commanded by an OF-9, with an OF-8 deputy, an OF-8 Ground Forces Commander, an OF-8 Air Force Commander and an OF-8 Naval Forces Commander. This is made up of the NATO contribution US and Canada. Should other nations in the Americas join NATO there contribution will be added to this force. The ground forces would be the same as the current US organization along with a Canadian Corps. Canada will add three battle groups to make up this corps, or around 6,000 soldiers. The air force will be the same as the USAF with the addition of the Canadian Air Group. And the Naval forces will be the same as the USN with the addition of the Canadian Fleet. In the case of an Article 5 war this is an operational formation, but otherwise is an organizational formation.

Expeditionary Force (EXFOR) - Commanded by an OF-9 with an OF-8 deputy. This command overseas the non-Article 5 operations and coordinates them. For example, in the current world that will be KFOR, ISAF, and the Anti-piracy operation in the Horn of Africa.

Advantages:

For Europe:
1) They will have more say in NATO. Rather than military commanders only representing their home nations, they will have a military leader than can represent and act as a spokesman for their collective NATO contribution.
2) If Europe would find the need to launch a collective military action they have a structure in place to do so. And it doesn't have the same issues as an EU Army as its a NATO organization and troops remain part of their home militaries when not called up.
3) NATO contributions can be more shared, but also with less hardship. Currently there are around 8 brigade equivalents in A-Stan (assuming brigades average 5,000) and about one brigade (NATO forces) in Kosovo. That means there would be about 6 rotations. So a nation may have a larger contribution than they do now for 6 months, but then they can guarantee their contribution is reduced with replacement. For one brigade nations (like the Netherlands would probably be) they have one large contribution, than can guarantee their home nation they can withdraw those troops for around two and a half years. These years give time for rest and refit and reduce the impact on the nation.

For the US:

1) More efficient non-US contribution to NATO operations.

[motiv-8]

Any disadvantages specific to this organization?

[Farnan]

That's what I'm waiting to hear haha.

Mostly I see for time nations would contribute more than they are now, but that contribution will be for a short time, then a break.

[Tiberios]

I think this sounds rather good. I mean it seems like an effective structure to me.

[MaximiIian]

I think this sounds rather good. I mean it seems like an effective structure to me.

This. Especially the fact that it would increase European contribution and give them more say in NATO affairs. It would generate more support for continuing the alliance.

[Treize]

It would severely shrink the armies of Europe and it will take away our military independence, not good.

[Farnan]

No the armies of Europe would remain the same size, just rotate troops through their NATO contribution brigade. And it won't take away their military independence, all national structures remain the same. And when not called up for NATO duty their contribution brigade remains in their nationality military's control. Only thing their national military must do when they are not called up is engage in at least a biannual training exercise.

[Treize]

I would prefer a multinational high command for crisis situations.

Not going to happen though, the US wants to keep in charge and the Eurofederalists in charge over here want an EU military. So it is not going to happen...

[DeMolay]

I think this is a good idea based on constructive intentions , however as IPA said , it will be difficult to achieve for political reasons .

If for example , the White House has a different and more aggressive policy toward Russia , Germany and other countries with borders with them , energy needs or lot of money invested there will not like this for instance .
Basically , the underlining problem is that Europe wants to cooperate with the US , but is afraid of being tied up within an organization that they do not really control politically (also because whatever the structural organization is , it is still the USA who will finance and control NATO , nothing can be done without at least their support ) .

The worse that could happen to Europe is if Russians and Americans struggle for influence in eastern europe to the point of militarizing the whole region and make it a potential battlefield , sort of continuing a cold war struggle , many europeans are weary of this as underlined during the Georgian conflict recently .

I still think that NATO has a future if foreign policies of UE countries and the USA 's general foreign policy orientations get closer together , for instance like it was under Bill Clinton although of course there were IMHO terrible political mistakes made during the war in Yugoslavia , but you get the point , politically , there were mainly convergences between US and european nations and this was something positive both for Americans and Europeans as a whole during the period .

In any case the more we get divided , the more vulnerable we are and difficult it is to face together the potentially serious threats that await us in the 21st century . European defence is an utopia as it stands , to get it , we need all members of UE to put some cash on the table , and no one apart from a handful of countries wants (or simply can't ) to do it at the moment so NATO is there to stand and has the merit of being functional , but IMHO as said IPA , it will be difficult to get public opinion to support an enlargement of this military organization in the current context

[Farnan]

I would prefer a multinational high command for crisis situations.

Not going to happen though, the US wants to keep in charge and the Eurofederalists in charge over here want an EU military. So it is not going to happen...

Well the US wants stronger European contributions, and this gives Eurofederalists a military structure even though its under the auspices of NATO. A compromise for both but not a major one.

If for example , the White House has a different and more aggressive policy toward Russia , Germany and other countries with borders with them , energy needs or lot of money invested there will not like this for instance .
Basically , the underlining problem is that Europe wants to cooperate with the US , but is afraid of being tied up within an organization that they do not really control politically (also because whatever the structural organization is , it is still the USA who will finance and control NATO , nothing can be done without at least their support ) .

NATO can only engage in non-Article 5 actions with a unanimous vote of all its members. Thus NATO will be used only for combined action. In a way it will turn as a coordinating body between the US, EU, Turkey and Canada. Europe and Turkey will gain a stronger say in how the non-Article 5 actions are done though with this new structure, in exchange for being more efficient in doing so.

The worse that could happen to Europe is if Russians and Americans struggle for influence in eastern europe to the point of militarizing the whole region and make it a potential battlefield , sort of continuing a cold war struggle , many europeans are weary of this as underlined during the Georgian conflict recently .

Don't see this turning into militarization too much. Eastern Europe, bar Ukraine and Belarus, are firmly in the US and EU camps and there hasn't been much militarization there. Georgia has though, but it is still in the US camp but Russia is moving to weaken it because of that. But it is unlikely to join NATO soon (unless the conflict with Russia dies down) so it shouldn't be an issue.

I still think that NATO has a future if foreign policies of UE countries and the USA 's general foreign policy orientations get closer together , for instance like it was under Bill Clinton although of course there were IMHO terrible political mistakes made during the war in Yugoslavia , but you get the point , politically , there were mainly convergences between US and european nations and this was something positive both for Americans and Europeans as a whole during the period .

Well the US and EU don't have to agree on everything for this to work, however this will help define a common security interest that the US and EU share. Further, this will be again for policies that the US, Europe and Turkey all agree upon. Such as A-Stan, KFOR, IFOR, SFOR, Somali Piracy, and various small operations that ran..

[Treize]

Well the US wants stronger European contributions, and this gives Eurofederalists a military structure even though its under the auspices of NATO. A compromise for both but not a major one.

That's not what they want. They want a sort of USE to get rid of USA influence. Probably out of jealousy...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In my opinion both Europeanists and Atlanticists are silly.

[M D]

Yeah, I'm really puzzled why the commander has to be American

[Farnan]

Because that is how its always been. The Military Commander is American and the Political Commander, and deputy military commander is European as is the deputy political commander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme...e_.28SACEUR.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...taries_General

[Tiberios]

Personally I don't really care if the commander is American. But couldn't it be rotated every 2 or 4 years between a European and an American. Just to make it more acceptable to some?

[cenkiss]

NATO is now a defensive alliance,your suggestion says that we should disband european armies and make them all into one Nato.We can't always be sure that all countries' benefits will be the same.

[The.Delegate]

NATO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be abolished. I would never want to see my country's military put under the control of foreigners even more than it is now.

[motiv-8]

NATO doesn't need to be reformed, it needs to be abolished. I would never want to see my country's military put under the control of foreigners even more than it is now.

That's.. not what NATO does whatsoever.

[Farnan]

NATO is now a defensive alliance,your suggestion says that we should disband european armies and make them all into one Nato.We can't always be sure that all countries' benefits will be the same.

I never said disband European Armies at all.

[justicar5]

NATO is now a defensive alliance,your suggestion says that we should disband european armies and make them all into one Nato.We can't always be sure that all countries' benefits will be the same.

Read it again, it in no way says that, all it puts in place is a structure for national militaries to slot into in times of war, with joint training every few years.

[Farnan]

Read it again, it in no way says that, all it puts in place is a structure for national militaries to slot into in times of war, with joint training every few years.

Exactly.

Except its twice yearly training.